Bob

What in the world are you talking about? "Competing footage"? The IDF videos show quite a bit of what happened and give those us out here in the real world a lot of context. Let's not pretend these "activists" don't have a serious credibility issue. Go read about "Free Gaza"'s political positions on this conflict - entirely one-sided. Do you think they care about Israeli needs and concerns? They do everything they can to propagandize this conflict into demonizing Israel. Let's also not pretend that the IDF videos don't do quite a bit to show us what really happened. Imagine if a group of people behaved that way when trying to enter Canada or the USA, not complying with authorities. How about if a group of individuals didn't adhere to military instructions in warzones like Afghanistan or Iraq? How would you expect border security or the military to respond? Let's not pretend that Gaza and Israel are in a state of belligerence. Clearly Gaza isn't a part of Israel, but Israel's security requires a blockade of Gaza to reduce the likelihood of weapons entering the territory which have been used against Israel many thousands of times over many decades and killed hundreds of Israelis - Hamas' seizing of power didn't do anything to paint a rosier picture of this circumstance.

I read about half of that "questionnaire", then had to stop because my head began to hurt from all the lies and stupidity. Virtually every question is loaded with a false supposition. In the same manner that I can only tolerate small amounts of Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann at any given time, I cannot tolerate this bullshit. It's just too out-to-lunch. Every question, along with every underlying false supposition, is easily refuted.

Gazans aren't starving, which is the lie you and many other anti-Israeli extremists are trying to perpetuate to the ignorant to garner support from morons.

The point remains - nobody is starving is Gaza. Living uncomfortably isn't the same thing as a humanitarian crisis. From the article: The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law. This statement is false. Gazans elected Hamas, an openly hostile group to power. Hamas not only states its anti-semitic and anti-Israel positions for all to see, but acts upon them for all to see. The accountability for Gaza becoming a hostile belligerent towards Israel and a threat to its security may not lie with all Gazans, but it lies with enough of them. Not only is the Israeli blockade legally justified, it is necessary. Do sanctions against Iran or the former Saddam-controlled Iraq constitute collective punishment, and therefore become illegal? How can the ICRC expect a state to supply another (or in this case, a territory) with all the goods and services it needs when they are in the midst of war/hostilities? Nowhere in this article is there even ONE mention about the reasons for the blockade. How can this organization expect to be taken seriously with respect to this issue if they ignore the entire context of Gazan aggression to Israel via Hamas and other terrorist groups that lead to the closure of its borders with Israel the Mediterranean? The ICRC has no credibility on this issue when it ignores the legitimate security concerns of Israel. Israel, like any other nation has a moral obligation to defend itself and its people from hostilities.

Since when were encyclopedia's good sources of information on the details of conflicts? Perhaps Wikipedia is a good start for someone who doesn't know where Israel or Palestine are on the map, but beyond the most basic facts (when a war started, when it ended, the number of casualties), you'll never see any valuable analysis there. Which is understandable, as it's an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also very biased, as the majority of its editors are clearly left-leaning folks with too much time on their hands (perhaps they are unemployed and/or uneducated). My advice to people who are sincerely interested in learning about this conflict, read books by renowned historians. Then read memoirs and analysis from involved parties, when its Kissinger's or Baker's autobiography, or Carter's "Peace, not Apartheid" or even Dershowitz's refutation of much of the anti-Israel bullshit out there, "The Case Against Israel's enemies". Wikipedia is brutally amateur.

I completely disagree. Those of us in here know of Gilad Shalit because we consume Middle Eastern news, and/or talk to people that follow the issues of the region. I'm quite certain that 99% of Canadians (and probably Americans) do not know who Gilad Shalit is, and I'm certain many more Canadians (and certainly Americans) know of the arrested American hikers being held captive in Iran.

WHO hasn't said anything about starvation in Gaza since the blockade. All I've seen is that they're claiming that there are shortages of specific medical supplies and slow transfers out of the strip for particular medical services (invariably done in Israeli hospitals). People in Gaza aren't starving. Do you want to know what starvation is? Want to see pictures of concentration camp survivors, or those who lived through the Leningrad siege? How about more contemporarily, and examining starvation in Africa? Suggesting that people in Gaza are even close to starvation is an insult to people of yesterday and today that actually do suffer from hunger. Spare us your bullshit. The Gaza situation may be precarious in some ways, but exaggerating its problems by making false claims of starvations doesn't help the dialogue. Good luck providing solid proof of your starvation claims. The real discussion about Gazan suffering lies in shortages of mostly non-essential things (which many of us, however, consider indispensable in our lives). Things like electronics, electricity, a wide variety of foods, and most importantly meaningful development through employment and economic progress. After Gaza was shut off, a huge chunk of its economy was severed (as it was very connected to Israel's economy), leaving that many more people on the dole of economic relief from the UN (primarily the USA and EU). Life in Gaza definitely sucks, but then again you can't expect to be treated well by your neighbours when you're openly hostile to them through words and through actions. Find me a comparable situation in history where a country or territory that was in a belligerent state with another country or territory and the normal flow of commerce was permitted. Allowing chocolate and jam into Gaza certainly isn't on Israel's list of priorities, and understandably so. Hypothetically consider that Quebec becomes openly hostile to Canada at a fraction of the level of Gaza's hostility to Israel. Would shipping jam and chocolate to Quebec be on Canada's top list of priorities? I doubt it.

The thing is, Gilad Shalit get NO airwaves. I consume a lot of American and Canadian media, and I've barely ever seen Gilad Shalit mentioned on any news program outside of an obscure reference to him from one of the typical "pro-Israel" token commentators in one of those two-minute "debates". Not sure where naomiglover gets the impression that Gilad Shalit gets a lot of coverage. The exact opposite is true.

Read about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. Read about the political and material relationship between Syria and Iran (and to a lesser extent Libya and some other Muslim countries) and Hezbollah, Hamas, and the myriad of other Islamic terrorist groups (perhaps you'd prefer to describe them as resistance fighter or freedom fighters). Gaza does not exist in a vacuum isolated from the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. Nor is it the only belligerent party with respect to Israel. Israel has almost has a major war per decade with its Arab neighbours, including the Palestinians. Occupied Palestinians are hardly the only belligerent Muslims in this drawn-out conflict.

People like naomiglover are a big part of the problem with the entire debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to her, all the blame lies with one party: Israel. How can you have a debate with a person who offers no recognizance of legitimate Israeli and Jewish grievances with its enemies? If she was honest about this issue she'd take up issue with endless problems on the Palestinian and Arab side of this battle. She's concerned about the denial of a "democratic legal process" (a term she just made up on the spot, I think she meant to say "due process", perhaps she think it sounds spiffy) to Palestinians and other Arabs arrested by Israel in the Palestinian territories, but not the denial of any semblance of the rule of law or democracy in Gaza? How about the murdering, arrests, and torture of apostates or suspected "Israeli-collaborators" or political dissidents in Gaza? Nevermind the fact that Israel is essentially at war with Gaza and has no formal peace agreement or mutual recognition between itself and Palestinians (or Lebanon, or Syria) - you can't expect full due process in a state like this. Due process doesn't work in war. The thousands of rockets fired into Israel? The vile hate-speech coming from top of the Hamas leadership all the way down to the common resident? Do I even need to mention the problems of the West Bank or neighbouring Arab dictatorships/regimes? To her, all responsibility for Palestinian actions lies with Israel, as apparently these occupied people can't be expected to do anything right, even if they live under the softest occupation the world has ever seen (greatest degree of autonomy and freedom). Once you stake out a position that essentially only supports one side, you're doomed to fail in efforts at honesty in this debate. Neither side monopolizes supreme moral superiority. I find myself sometimes guilty of this with respect to supporting Israel, but I do consider myself much more honest (resulting from extensive research) on this issue than 99% of other out there. Am I special? No, it's just the natural consequence of seeking out a wide range of sources of information regarding this conflict (no, Wikipedia doesn't count).

Well said August1991. I am never going to apologize for being pro-freedom and pro-democracy. These values are universal, not relative and not Western.

People are starving and dying in Gaza? Since when? I also don't find Jon Stewart particularly funny. Actually I don't find him funny, at all. I like some of his correspondents. Stewart is preachy and ignorant. I saw a portion of an episode of his show where he tried to disparage a Charles Krauthammer recent opinion piece stating that there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza (there isn't), and then Jon Stewart went into his soapbox mode, showed an image of a poorly maintained building that was apparently in Gaza, and suggested that Krauthammer is an evil and insensitive man to deny the "obvious" suffering of Gazans. There's a difference between not living well and a humanitarian crisis, especially when the problems of Gaza are largely brought on by their own hostile actions and "government".

Seriously, where do you find this trash? I can only imagine the corners of the internet that people like you scour to find this "dirt" on people you want to discredit, as they propose opinions that run contrary to your prejudices. Caroline Glick is a renowned journalist, and I've been reading her articles and watching her in news interviews for years. She is hardly a "far-right neo-con", as much as you intend to use those terms pejoratively. Perhaps you use the term "fascist" when describing Stephen Harper, as well? She is a journalist and academic whose area of expertise is Israel and Israeli issues, and she's got more credibility in her baby toe on these issues than you and everyone at this unknown salon.com website, combined. Where in the world does this salon.com website (I've never heard of it until now) discover who funds the CSP? It's a private organization and doesn't divulge its financiers. Just another case of fake news, "it must be true if it's on the internet". This pathetic leftist use of the terms "neo-con", "Zionist", "conservative", and "ultra-conservative" in a not-so-subtle disparaging tone is so transparent and pathetic. I proudly label myself as a Zionist and it's not a term that you can use disparagingly, unless you're pandering to anti-semites and other morons. I mean seriously, you and the folks over at salon.com probably don't even know what Zionism is!

I agree with you. Avi Lewis' statements are very typical and unoriginal. I've heard them all before, from a wide variety of Canadians (and non-Canadians). I don't find Avi Lewis articulate, at all. Rather, I find him obnoxious. When he laughs at Ayaan in rejecting this position of hers or that, he comes across like a moron... that's to say nothing of his moronic positions on the issue being discussed.

So Canada isn't the only country where the French demographic, overall, leeches off of the non-French?

All Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. I agree.

Introspection would then lead to a mea culpa from the broader Muslim world towards America and the West. What I was driving at was that if any large collective should apologize to any other large collection, it needs to come from the broader Muslim community to the USA, and not the other way around. The USA has little to apologize for, especially with respect to the responsibility for the depravity and totalitarianism of the Muslim Middle East. What's your point?

That's not what I meant, and I anticipated this response from you. What I meant was that earlier, when I was talking about the Muslim community making moves to make amends with America and the West, I intended to refer much more strongly to the Muslim community abroad, particularly in the Middle East. Don't expect us to like them if they continue to conduct themselves the way they do.

What I was trying to get at is that I believe there is an element of complicity among the broader Muslim community which contributes to a culture more likely to breed terrorism and extremism. I've had candid talks with my Muslim friends, and they all have shared with me that they were exposed to anti-semitic messages growing up and still get them from their family. These aren't trashy families, either, for example one of my Pakistani friends tells me regularly about his mother's (she's a medical/science professional) not-so-subtle anti-semitism. I've seen anti-semitism from all sorts of Muslim communities, in Ottawa and Toronto as well as Jerusalem and Paris. This common theme of anti-semitism by natural extension leads to a hatred of those associated with Israel, primarily the USA. There's a lot to be said about this complex subject, but all I'm trying to get across is that you shouldn't be naive to the realities that there are some very disturbing cultural/political/social trends that are common among the broader Muslim community that any sensible would find abhorrent - and these trends have exploded far beyond the dinner table and have been for decades.

How about the Middle East adopting democracy and pluralism, for starters?

I agree, somewhat.

Just because we can't empirically quantify these things like measuring oranges at the grocery store doesn't mean we don't have enough sense to recognize dangerous trends and rank them in order of severity. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Christian fundamentalism resulting in the murder of abortion doctors is hardly comparable to the threat faced by us from Islamic terrorism. I sure hope I don't need to go into details to explain why that is, it should be obvious. With respect to religion and culture, of course this is more complex and nuanced. There is a great degree of overlap between these two concepts, and of course Islam cannot be seen as a monolithic entity without great variation between those who identify themselves as belonging to that group. Still, there are serious problems in the Muslim community that need to be addressed domestically, but more importantly, abroad. For example, I don't think it's as likely for honour killings to take place in Toronto as in Karachi.

Are you suggesting that the broader Muslim community is making serious efforts towards tackling problems within its society? Are you going to now show me examples of liberalization in the Muslim community that makes it more compatible with universal values of freedom and liberty? Are you suggesting that we are fighting those who are attempting to make positive changes in the Muslim community? Since when were we fighting positive reformers? Are you suggesting that we're persecuting Muslims somehow because of 9/11 or the thousands of other acts of Islamic terrorism the world has endured over many decades? I have no idea what you're talking about. Remember, I am not opposed to the construction of this Muslim community centre. Based on the little I've read about this Rauf guy, his perceptions of politics seems to be warped, although not crossing any extreme lines. His suggestion that the USA needs to make apologies to the Muslim world for the Muslim world's own inadequacies (totalitarianism, for starters) is absurd. On the one hand he condemns terrorism, on the the other hand he subtly implies that the USA has contributed to the motivations of terrorism against it and its interests - rather than the reality, motivations for terrorism are entirely rooted in a warped perception of the world and a screwed up sense of morality. Who generates this perception and messed up morality? The environment in wish they develop them - the Muslim world. To suggest that American involvement in the Middle East (i.e. buying oil from Saudi Arabia is somehow equated to "propping up" dictators) understandably brings terrorism upon itself, is absurd, but not an uncommon sentiment among many.

So let's get this straight, this allegation of Saudi Arabian/Israeli cooperation on this one matter (which has already been denied by Saudi Arabia officially) somehow overrides the endless list of anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli terrorism (not to mention virtually one war per decade between Israel and its hostile neighbours) and rhetoric that we've seen from Muslims and Arabs for over a century? Are you actually suggesting that the hostility of Arabs and Muslims to Jews and Israel is overstated or exaggerated? Let's be clear, it's not just some in the Israeli government who are very concerned about Israeli and Jewish security at home and abroad resulting from Arab and Muslim incitement (think Saudi Arabia is a safe place for a Jew?), it's Jews and our supporters who take claims against us and Israel seriously, not-to-mention the endless acts of violence and terrorism against us. This threat is not simply imaginary, it's been experienced for over a century.

The Jewish people coming together in Israel has been a big part of overcoming adversity. Israel doesn't try to get every single Jew in the world to make Israel his or her home, either... rather, it opens itself to every Jew who may wish to make Israel his or her home. There's a big difference. It's not as if Israel actively proselytizes to diaspora Jews to the religion of making Aliyah. There's not much of a recruitment program in effect. I'll say it again Jews in Israel, and the strengthening of Jews within Israel is an integral part of the Jewish people overcoming adversity. To suggest that our being in Israel is a threat to us and that we should abandon it is simply absurd.